Peter The Rock...

[Jake Huether]

Is it a coincidence that "Peter" can also be translated "small stone"? For was it not a small stone that David used to kill the Philistine?

So that not only is Peter the ROCK, the foundation upon which Christ's unmovable Church is built, but Peter is also the small stone that God will use to destroy Satan?

The Church therefore is not this inactive mountain that simply cannot be overcome by Satan, although that is very insuring nonetheless. But it is also an active participant in the destruction of Satan.

Am I off the mark on this one? I just thought about this this morning, the 1st Reading was about David killing the Philistine. It popped into my head when I heard how David picked 5 small stones, and used one of them to kill Goliath. And when I heard "small stone" I was reminded of how Protestants use that particular translation of "Peter" in order to try to "debunk" the idea that Peter was the ROCK. But in fact, "small stone" would also be fitting, as it was a "small stone" that overcame the giant Philistine.

[Paladin D]

Wow, that's powerful.

[Dave]

I never thought about it like that. However, remember that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The "petros/petra" issue only came about because "petra" (meaning large rock) is feminine. You couldn't have a feminine noun to describe a male, so "petros," a masculine noun that had meant small stone, would have to do. However, I think I read that the distinction between the 2 words was gone by the time the Gospels were written in Greek.

In Aramaic, however, the word used is the same: "You are Kepha and on this kepha . . . "

[Jake Huether]

I never thought about it like that. However, remember that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The "petros/petra" issue only came about because "petra" (meaning large rock) is feminine. You couldn't have a feminine noun to describe a male, so "petros," a masculine noun that had meant small stone, would have to do. However, I think I read that the distinction between the 2 words was gone by the time the Gospels were written in Greek.

In Aramaic, however, the word used is the same: "You are Kepha and on this kepha . . . "

As usual, you are correct.

I knew that it was a translational issue. But I think the idea's cool, nonetheless.

[M.SIGGA]

Wow this is amesome! Also consider Daniel Chapter 2, where the Babylonian King Nebuchanezzar has a dream that Daniel interprets:

31

"In your vision, O king, you saw a statue, very large and exceedingly bright, terrifying in appearance as it stood before you.

32

The head of the statue was pure gold, its chest and arms were silver, its belly and thighs bronze,

33

4 the legs iron, its feet partly iron and partly tile.

34

While you looked at the statue, a stone which was hewn from a mountain without a hand being put to it, struck its iron and tile feet, breaking them in pieces.

35

The iron, tile, bronze, silver, and gold all crumbled at once, fine as the chaff on the threshing floor in summer, and the wind blew them away without leaving a trace. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

36

5 "This was the dream; the interpretation we shall also give in the king's presence.

37

You, O king, are the king of kings; to you the God of heaven has given dominion and strength, power and glory;

38

men, wild beasts, and birds of the air, wherever they may dwell, he has handed over to you, making you ruler over them all; you are the head of gold.

39

Another kingdom shall take your place, inferior to yours, then a third kingdom, of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth.

40

There shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron; it shall break in pieces and subdue all these others, just as iron breaks in pieces and crushes everything else.

41

The feet and toes you saw, partly of potter's tile and partly of iron, mean that it shall be a divided kingdom, but yet have some of the hardness of iron. As you saw the iron mixed with clay tile,

42

and the toes partly iron and partly tile, the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.

43

The iron mixed with clay tile means that they shall seal their alliances by intermarriage, but they shall not stay united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44

In the lifetime of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people; rather, it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever.

45

That is the meaning of the stone you saw hewn from the mountain without a hand being put to it, which broke in pieces the tile, iron, bronze, silver, and gold. The great God has revealed to the king what shall be in the future; this is exactly what you dreamed, and its meaning is sure."

46

Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell down and worshiped Daniel and ordered sacrifice and incense offered to him.

Gold: Babylon

Silver: Persian(Mede) Empire

Bronze: Hellenic Empire

Iron: Roman Empire

Iron and Tile: Roman and Byzantine Empires

Until Christ's Church, all these powers ruled over Israel and the World in this very number and order, and the Church that Christ founded liberated the world and crumbled these powers and Christendom triumphed. The Role of St. Peter and the Church is fortold long before Christ while God's chosen people were still in Babylonian captivity. A ROCK crumbles every earthly kingdom and fortells how the God's kingdom will ultimately triumph through the Church.

The number 5 (the number of stones used to kill the Philistine) is also the same number of kingdoms that persecuted the Chosen people until the Church. King David is also the ancestor of Jesus ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

This verse alone lead a friend of mine back the Catholic Church. Powerful stuff man!

[Jake Huether]

Wow! **speechless**

[God Conquers]

Dudes.... those were, if I may use the word in all seriousness....

amesome!

I love it!

[phatcatholic]

my only qualm would be that if we start using the "small stone" analogy, then that may give anti-catholics the wrong idea, and lead them to think that they have gained some leverage in their exegesis of Jesus' words "You are Peter, and upon this rock...." I could see one of them saying, "oh, so u agree that Peter is a small stone, eh?" so, this would cause us to have to do some unnecessary backtracking or reiteration. plus, i've often seen that the more words we use to explain or defend our position, the more irritable and impatient they get. (of course, this is just a generalization from MY experience.......don't want to assume this about all people).

both of those metaphors are productive for catholics to talk about. they just probably don't do very much in the way of apologetics.

what do u guys think?

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Jake Huether]

Again, correct.

But I wasn't thinking of scrapping the actual meaning of Peter (ROCK, as David pointed out, in Aramaic). I was just thinking of how "little stone" coincidentally? puts Peter back at the top of the chaine anyway, since that's how God chose to destroy "evil" before.

Of course from an Apologetic standpoint "little stone" = Peter doesn't even exist. But strictly from a personal contemplative insight, it makes sense to me. :D

[Jake Huether]

So don't rain on the parade! :P

[M.SIGGA]

So don't rain on the parade!

maybe this could get pinned on the apologetics board?

[phatcatholic]

maybe this could get pinned on the apologetics board?

well, since we all agree that it's not very condusive to effective apologetics, i probably won't use it. but i do second Jake's sentiment that it is nonetheless intriguing for Catholics to contemplate.

let the parade continue! :D

Edited January 23, 2004 by phatcatholic